--- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "jonathanstein_csec" <x-
> Mr. Streutker wrote:
> Neither John Stear (who is just a retired bureaucrat who rebuked
> fellow skeptics for not being anti-Christian enough) nor Henke are
> reliable or objective guides to truth!
> Unsupported assertion.
> Typical -- not only does he spout off against Dr Sarfati's book
> without making the slightest effort to read it, he refuses to find
> out the easily accessible truth of this assertion.
It's sad to see Jonathan so wrong in his assertions. I have made
plenty of efforts to read it, in fact I have been reading it for the
last few days and I am sadly embarassed about the countless errors in
Sarfati's work. As an ex-YEC'er I have seen these arguments rebutted
time after time without any recognition from the YEC 'scientists'. So
rather than use the so unchristian approach of ad hominem should
Jonathan not focus on the scientific argument? Would that not be the
Christian and scientific way to respond?
> Sarfati himself
> has tracked him down at http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp, after
> seeing how Stear deceitfully tried to portray his site as being non-
> anti-Christian. The following information is based on that URL
> we can no more rely on Gromit to make the slightest effort to check
> it out than read RE).
Let's focus on Henke please...
> Stear, on his website beloved by Gromit, responded by actually
> claiming that Stalin and Hitler were Christians, a common assertion
> on atheistic websites.
> So, Gromit, why do you adulate a man who is either incredibly
> or simply dishonest.
Why are you dishonest here? "Adulate: To praise or admire
excessively; fawn on" I have done neither. Your attempt at ad
hominems is quite telling. Where did I adulate this person. Your
strawmen are insulting to any intelligent person.
> So why should contributors to this discussion board give Stear the
> slightest credence since he aids and abets dishonesty and grossly
> unthetical behavior for his atheistic cause? And why should we
> credence to people like Henke who publish there (especially after
> Faulkner has demostrated how utterly irresponsible Henke is with
> sources that Dr Faulkner checked, and which even Gromit
I love the ad hominem argument.
> Finally, why should we give credence to Gromit who supports them??
Because you cannot rebut Gromit's arguments? I understand that the
only recourse left might be rejecting the person.
I have been there, as a YEC'er I ended up rejecting God himself
through my insistance that I knew that God had created in 6000 years.
Luckily He did not reject me and guided me to find the truth. Praise
to the Lord for that indeed.
> If you want a more objective review of Refuting Evolution, see
Your inability to address and rebut the reviews of Refuting Evolution
by Henke and me are duely noted.
> I hope that helps,
It does help. So will you be willing/able to respond to my criticisms
and others of Sarfati's work with something more than insults and ad
hominems? Let me know
In the mean time:
"Sarfati (p. 113) also claims that a "lack" of helium escape from the
atmosphere supports its "youth." However, recent NASA images show
helium and other gases being SWEPT from the Earth's atmosphere into
deep space. One event occurred on September 24-25, 1998 after a
solar coronal mass emission (see Solar Wind Blows Some of the Earth's
Atmosphere into Space and Solar Wind Squeezes Some of the Earth's
Atmosphere into Space). Also, see Young earth "Proof #14: Helium and
the "Young" Earth by Dave Matson."
And the disproof of Sarfati
Young-earth "proof" #14: The amount of helium in the atmosphere
divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.
14. The age of 175,000 years is a little steep for creationist
purposes, so Dr. Hovind informs us that "God must have started the
earth with some." Heaven forbid that the earth should be older than
about 7000 years!
Helium-4 is the product of radioactive alpha decay whereas Helium-3
is primordial. The rates of their "production" are simply the rates
of their escape from within the earth to the atmosphere.
A fair amount of helium is lost from the earth's atmosphere by simply
being heated up in the elevated temperature of the exosphere
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112). The exosphere is the outermost layer of our
atmosphere, beginning after the ionosphere at about 300 miles above
the earth. When a lightweight helium atom is heated up, especially
Helium-3, which is even lighter than Helium-4, it can easily pick up
enough speed to escape Earth's gravity altogether and head off into
outer space. Heating gas is a little like swatting rubber balls with
a paddle; the lighter balls travel a lot faster after being swatted.
In this manner about half of the Helium-3 produced is lost to outer
space. The amount of the heavier Helium-4 lost by this method appears
to be far short of the amount produced. Hence, the point of Morris'
argument which is based on calculations by Cook. However, there are
other mechanisms of helium escape which Morris and Cook have
overlooked. Creationist Larry Vardiman (ICR Impact series, No.143,
May 1985) at least recognizes some of these other factors. However,
he has not fully addressed the matter, let alone proven that the
earth is young.
The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of
helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the
Earth's magnetic field. Banks and Holzer  have shown that the
polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2 sec
of Helium-4, which is nearly identical to the estimated production
flux of (2.5 ±1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2 sec. Calculations for Helium-3
lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the
production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct
interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the
short periods of lower magneticfield intensity while the field is
reversing. Sheldon and Kern  estimated that 20 geomagnetic-
field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a
balance between helium production and loss.
(Dalrymple, 1984, p.112)
Dr. Dalrymple goes on to explain that even though our understanding
of the helium balance in the atmosphere is incomplete, the situation
being very complicated because of various hardtocalculate factors, we
do know one thing. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape
from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production."
Thus, the helium balance calculations provided by creationist Melvin
Cook (which are used by Henry Morris) cannot provide a reliable
minimum estimate of the earth's age. Their argument is a fatal
oversimplification of a complex problem.
A Response to the Helium Argument
3. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based
on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and
thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can
escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young. a)
Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish,
1966), pp. 10-14.
Cook, as it turns out, was wrong. There are two basic mechanisms for
getting helium out of the earth's atmosphere, thermal escape (which
Cook must have known about) and ionic escape (which Cook either did
not know about or underestimated).
Thermal escape is the standard method. Helium being the lightest
thing around save hydrogen, it will tend to predominate at the
highest levels of the earths atmosphere, the thermosphere. Some of
the helium atoms will gain enough energy, either by collision, of
through absorption of solar energy, to escape from earth altogether.
If Cook made use of only the thermal escape mechanism, he would have
underestimated the rate of helium escape, and derived an
inconsistency between the relatively high rate of production, low
rate of escape, and amount present, if one assumes an old earth.
However, it has been shown that helium ionizes and can then escape
preferentially along the lines of the earth's magnetic field, where
the field is concentrated near the poles. By adding up all of the
known escape mechanisms and production mechanisms, it now appears
that helium is in equilibrium in the earth's atmosphere. The present
abundance is not a problem for the old earth.
Larry Vardiman made the same argument in I.C.R. Impact #143, May
1985. He mentions ionic escape, but assumes it is insufficient. But
the papers I reference below came out some time later, and show that
the ionic outflow mechanism is quite sufficient to solve the problem.
Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow
O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) v101(A2): pp2435-2443
(1996 Feb 1)
We have computed global He+ escape fluxes for a range and a variety
of diurnal, seasonal, universal time, and solar activity geophysical
conditions. We average over the short-term variables and compute the
globally averaged escape flux for a range of cutoff latitudes, which
separate regions of open and closed field lines, during one solar
cycle. The global escape flux averaged over a solar cycle was
computed, and we find that a cutoff latitude of about 60 degrees or
lower is sufficient to balance the outgassing from the Earth's crust.
Helium Escape from the Earth's Atmosphere - The Charge-Exchange
O. Liesvendsen, M.H. Rees & K. Stamnes
Planetary and Space Science v40(12): pp1639-1662 (1992 Dec)
We have studied the escape of neutral helium from the terrestrial
atmosphere through exothermic charge exchange reactions between He+
ions and the major atmospheric constituents N2, O2 and 0. Elastic
collisions with the neutral background particles were treated
quantitatively using a recently developed kinetic theory approach. An
interhemispheric plasma transport model was employed to provide a
global distribution of He+ ions as a function of altitude, latitude
and local solar time and for different levels of solar ionization.
Combining these ion densities with neutral densities from an MSIS
model and best estimates for the reaction rate coefficients of the
charge exchange reactions, we computed the global distribution of the
neutral He escape flux. The escape rates show large diurnal and
latitudinal variations, while the global average does not vary by
more than a factor of three over a solar cycle. We find that this
escape mechanism is potentially important for the overall balance of
helium in the Earth's atmosphere. However, more accurate values for
the reaction rate coefficients of the charge exchange reactions are
required to make a definitive assessment of its importance.
Scientists have known since the early 1980s that Earth's upper
atmosphere leaks oxygen, helium, and hydrogen ions (atoms that have
gained or lost an electron) into space from regions near the poles.
But it was not until the Polar spacecraft flew through this fountain
of ionized gas in September 1998 that scientists confirmed that the
flow of ions was caused by solar activity.
If scientists have known this since the early 1980's where was
More on Sarfati